Assessing the Microbiological Performance and Potential Cost of Boiling Drinking Water in Urban Zambia.

Article English OPEN
Psutka, R ; Peletz, R ; Michelo, S ; Kelly, P ; Clasen, T (2011)

Boiling is the most common method of disinfecting water in the home and the benchmark against which other point-of-use water treatment is measured. In a six-week study in peri-urban Zambia, we assessed the microbiological effectiveness and potential cost of boiling among 49 households without a water connection who reported "always" or "almost always" boiling their water before drinking it. Source and household drinking water samples were compared weekly for thermotolerant coliforms (TTC), an indicator of fecal contamination. Demographics, costs, and other information were collected through surveys and structured observations. Drinking water samples taken at the household (geometric mean 7.2 TTC/100 mL, 95% CI, 5.4-9.7) were actually worse in microbiological quality than source water (geometric mean 4.0 TTC/100 mL, 95% CI, 3.1-5.1) (p < 0.001), although both are relatively low levels of contamination. Only 60% of drinking water samples were reported to have actually been boiled at the time of collection from the home, suggesting over-reporting and inconsistent compliance. However, these samples were of no higher microbiological quality. Evidence suggests that water quality deteriorated after boiling due to lack of residual protection and unsafe storage and handling. The potential cost of fuel or electricity for boiling was estimated at 5% and 7% of income, respectively. In this setting where microbiological water quality was relatively good at the source, safe-storage practices that minimize recontamination may be more effective in managing the risk of disease from drinking water at a fraction of the cost of boiling.
  • References (33)
    33 references, page 1 of 4

    (1) Kosek, M.; Bern, C.; Guerrant, R. The global burden of diarrhoeal disease, as estimated from studies published between 1992 and 2000. Bull. W. H. O. 2003, 81, 197-204.

    (2) WHO/UNICEF. Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation, 2010.

    (3) Fewtrell, L.; Kaufmann, R.; Kay, D.; Enanoria, W.; Haller, L.; Colford, J. Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less developed countries: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2005, 5 (1), 42-52.

    (4) Clasen, T.; Schmidt, W. P.; Rabie, T.; Roberts, I.; Cairncross, S. Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. Med. J. 2007, 334 (7597), 782-785.

    (5) Waddington, H.; Snilstveit, B.; White, H.; Fewtrell, L., Water, sanitation and hygiene interventions to combat childhood diarrhoea in developing countries. Synth. Rev. 2009, 1.

    (6) Clasen, T.; Bartram, J.; Colford, J.; Luby, S.; Quick, R.; Sobsey, M. Comment on “Household Water Treatment in Poor Populations: Is There Enough Evidence for Scaling Up Now? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (14), 5542-5544.

    (7) Hunter, P. Household water treatment in developing countries: Comparing different intervention types using meta-regression. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (23), 8991-8997.

    (8) Sobsey, M. Managing Water in the Home: Accelerated Health Gains from Improved Water Supply; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.

    (9) Rosa, G.; Clasen, T. Estimating the scope of household water treatment in low- and medium-income countries. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2010, 82 (2), 289-300.

    (10) Gilman, R.; Skillicorn, P. Boiling of drinking-water: Can a fuelscarce community afford it? Bull. W. H. O. 1985, 63 (1), 157.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    LSHTM Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 67
Share - Bookmark